[Buddha-l] Are Freemasons ordained?

[Alex Wilding]

On Wednesday, 19 August 2009 4:29 AM

"Jayarava" wrote a message with the title "Ordination (again) or the
semiotics of privilege" full, if I may say so, of red herrings.

Thank you, Michael (you are Michael Attwood, aren't you?), for trying to
divine my thoughts and motivations and to expose my hidden faults at various
points in your message. Your points do not feel, in most cases, as if they
struck home particularly well, probably because we don't really know each
other, but it was good of you to try. I will however attempt to address
primarily more concrete points.

Early in your message you say, in response to my:
> > Here on Buddha-L we are, I assume, communicating in a
> > more general Buddhist framework.

> An academic Buddhist framework even. In which case
> you should be using the appropriate terminology:
> upasamada or whatever the Tibetan equivalent is.
> If citing a Tibetan term I might ask that you give a
> Sanskrit equivalent since I know no Tibetan at all.
> Surely if we have a lingua franca for terminology it is
> Sanskrit? 
A complete red herring. We are discussing the use of the English words
"ordination" and "ordained" in an English-speaking context.

You had asked:
> > > How much influence would you say that Japanese Buddhism has 
> > > had on Western Buddhism generally speaking?
I replied:
> > I have no idea even of the number of adherents, let alone
> > how we'd go about measuring their influence. 
You asked:
> Is this genuine or feigned ignorance I wonder?
Entirely genuine. Even on the concrete matter of how many adherents it has,
I have no figures or even reliable guesses. And I am very, very serious that
I don't know how we would measure their influence. I'll confess to a light
touch of hyperbole, if I may be permitted an oxymoron, but essentially an
entirely genuine response.

> I could suggest that you read Jan Nattier's introductory
> comments to "A Few Good Men" if you doubt my word
> (and doubting me seems to be an article of faith with you).
Your view seems not unreasonable, if hard to prove. Why the paranoia?

I pointed out that:
> > General "Western Buddhism" is also not a term that conveys
> > anything of clarity to me.
. and you said:
> Doesn't surprise me. 
I'm not sure if there is an implication behind your comment. The kinds of
Buddhism followed by Westerners are so heterogeneous (delightfully so, if I
may say so) that talk of "Western Buddhism" is about as meaningful as
"Western cooking". How much influence has, say, Indian cooking on "Western
cooking"? In Birmingham, rather a lot; in Reykjavik, Alabama or Rio de
Janeiro probably rather less.

At this point I should emphasise that the whole business of what is a
connotation and what is a denotation is also rather red herring. We clearly
understand those two words differently, and since language has been at the
heart of my work since the mid-90s, I'm looking forward to finding out which
of us is right there. It could perfectly well be you (though I don't think
so) but it really doesn't matter. We can, instead, talk about what could be
part of the definition of a term, and what is merely implied or suggested by
it.

Michael then asserts that:
> To Alex the distinction is important because if I say
> I am ordained then he will feel bound to bow to me. 
Not quite. I will bow to you in formal settings if and when you are ordained
in the sense that I had been understanding it (the 200+ vows).

You follow with:
> Perhaps Alex you are more in need of broadening
> the definition than I am of narrowing it?

Indeed. As I had said in the post that you are responding to:
> > you have convinced me that . I now accept that
> > the term has become quite loose.

Shortly afterwards, Michael contends:
> This argument is not about semantics it is an apologetic for
> privilege. The word 'ordination' signifies that privilege for Alex
The "privilege" is pretty tiny compared to the sacrifices that should be
involved in the life of a monk or none. It's certainly not a life for me!

> Only the 'fully ordained' are entitled to be treated like
> Asian feudal lords - including the control of resources!!
.
> > Alex believes the myths created by the monks
> > themselves that they deserve to be treated as
> > lords - and in particular bowed down to. 
I say, old chap, that's a bit of a broad brush your painting with there! But
I have seen that you (Jayarava/Michael) are something of an apologist for
the FWBO, and I also see that they make something of a "thing" about going
"beyond the monk-lay divide", so perhaps that is where your attitudes are
coming from. Come to think of it, perhaps this explains your apparent belief
that there is such a thing as "Western Buddhism".

> > I don't even bow to my preceptors or teachers - we
> > greet each other with a handshake or a hug as appropriate.
Ah, the FWBO hug! But moving on hurriedly, I want to address further
assumptions:

> What would Alex's teacher think if Alex did *not* bow
> to *him*? Would he disapprove and withdraw his
> affection? Wouldn't that be terrible? That must be
> a fearful position to be in and hence his resistance
> to either evidence or logic. 
This is all in your fantasy, Michael. Sometimes I bow to my teachers,
sometimes I don't - it all depends on how formal the situation is. They
don't seem to mind very much either way, except for trying to stop the
bowing when it's all too much fiddle. And perhaps I should also point out
that my two most important teachers are not monks, and of the dozen or so
other important ones, about half are and half are not. In any case, bowing
is not such a big deal. To "Westerners" with little exposure to these things
it seems like a lot, but once you're used to it it's not much different from
standing up when a lady comes into the room (though I know that suggests
attitudes that we are leaving behind, but you know what I mean).

I had hoped that:
> > Can we agree on the following? 
but my offer was declined with:
> I don't see any point in agreeing to something
> which I think is nonsense and stated for nonsensical
> reasons. No, I don't agree. I have nothing to gain
> by agreeing with you either. I'd prefer to have
> dissonance than capitulate to views I see as inimical
> to civilisation. It's made me more clear than ever
> that we need to abandon traditional mores. 
> Maybe it's time to start splatting monks with
> custard pies?
Gosh! Well at least we know where you're coming from now. Are you really
saying that wanting to preserve the distinction between those holding
traditional Buddhist monastic ordination on the one hand, and members of the
WBO on the other is "inimical to civilisation"? Wow!

To finish, another suggestion, which I think I shall use even though I
imagine you won't. Taking my cue from the Order of the Phoenix, its members
are simply called members of the Order of the Phoenix, not as ordained
Phoenixians. (It's funny, isn't it, how "ordained" and "member of an order"
have such different connotations?) So in the Buddhist context I shall
continue to use "ordained" to mean those holding the traditional vows, I'm
happy enough to refer to people like you as members of the WBO, but I have
also come to accept that there are people like yourself who have broadened
the term "ordination" to include people like you and, for that matter, me.

All the best
Alex Wilding

PS Are Freemasons ordained?